As the world grapples with malnutrition and famine, some scientists argue that biofortifying food through GM technology is the only way to save millions of lives, but is GM technology safe and should it be embraced by all humanity? Cathy Pryor and Michael Mackenzie report.

In a lab in far north Queensland, a team of scientists headed by distinguished professor James Dale has for the past decade been diligently working on a fruit that some have dubbed a ‘super banana’.

I think the ethical question would be “did the researchers knowingly withhold information on a part of the study that would potentially adversely affect the health of their children?” The answer to that is clearly no.

Grown in field trials in Innisfail, the banana has been genetically modified using genes from a vitamin A rich banana native to Papua New Guinea. The aim was to produce a banana so rich in alpha and beta-carotene (sources of vitamin A) it could alleviate chronic deficiencies in countries like Uganda.

Vitamin A deficiency, according to the World Health Organisation, is the leading cause of preventable blindness in children and is a contributor to other potentially fatal illnesses such as measles. It has until now been tackled through vitamin supplements and fortifying food in developing nations, but for the past three decades scientists around the world have been racing to produce staple foods such as bananas, potatoes and rice that have heightened levels of alpha and beta-carotene through genetic manipulation.

Professor Dale, from the Queensland University of Technology, has in the past few months seen his bananas, resplendent with their bright orange flesh, sent to the University of Iowa in the United States for human feeding trials, with volunteers reportedly paid $900 each for their efforts. Animal testing on Mongolian gerbils, animals that mimic the human intake of vitamin A, has already shown great success, but the US trials will determine whether the higher levels of beta-carotene found in the banana can in fact be converted to vitamin A by the human body.

On the other side of the world, Gianfranco Diretto, a research scientist at the Italian Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development, has been working on increasing the beta-carotene levels in other foods. For tomatoes, the gene comes from grass, while potatoes have had a synthetic gene inserted. These ‘golden’ potatoes and tomatoes also have a different colour; with white potatoes turning yellow and the red flesh of the tomato becoming more orange.

The research has taken its cues from ‘golden rice’, a food long considered the poster child of genetic engineering, or the enemy within—depending on which side of the GM fence you sit. Started in the 1980s with the backing of the Rockefeller Institute, the golden rice project has had a long road to hoe.

Organisations such as Greenpeace are vehemently opposed to golden rice, arguing that the benefits of the food haven’t been proved and that its adoption could open the way for other GM foods with social and environmental side effects. However, one of the founders of Greenpeace, Dr Patrick Moore, who left the organisation in 1986, is now spearheading an international media campaign championing golden rice. He claims Greenpeace and others are ‘committing crimes against humanity’ by opposing technology that he believes could save millions of lives.

‘If Golden Rice shows that GMOs can be good for humanity, then maybe it will end this ridiculous sensationalism and fear mongering about genetic modification which is based on nothing,’ he says.

‘That’s why they invent terms like Frankenstein seeds, killer tomato, terminator seed. These are all borrowed from scary Hollywood movies and are based on fiction ... It makes GM seem scary when in fact GM is friendly. So friendly, in fact, that it could save two million people from dying every year with one genetic modification in rice.’

So what is it about GM technology that still divides opinion so fiercely? Could GM foods really be the answer, or could the same results be achieved through more conventional breeding methods?

Dr Michael Hansen, a senior scientist with the Consumers Union in the US, is one who questions the efficacy of the golden rice research, arguing that scientists initially used the wrong kind of rice—concentrating on japonica varieties that are eaten in countries such as Japan, instead of the indica varieties that are eaten in vitamin A deficient countries such as India, Sri Lanka and the Philippines.

He also argues that human feeding trials on adults and children were not conducted in the same conditions under which rice would normally be consumed, harvested and stored.

Dr Bob Zeigler, director of the International Rice Research Institute, the organisation that is conducting field trials of golden rice in the Philippines, refutes these suggestion that the wrong varieties of rice have been used, and says that indica varieties have been used in research for a number of years. He admits that beta-carotene levels do decrease over time, he says they have had good results in rice that has been stored for at least three months.

While Dr Zeigler does admit that more work has to be done to improve yields, with the latest field trials showing ‘mixed’ results and lower yields than non-GM varieties, he says the science has shown without doubt that eating golden rice improves vitamin A levels for those who need it.

However, that research is not without its own controversy. By far the most damning episode for golden rice has been the fallout from feeding trials involving children in China, led by Dr Guangwen Tang, a researcher based at Tufts University in the US. Last year the university acknowledged the researcher had failed to properly inform parents in China that their children were eating GMO foods. Tang has now hired a lawyer and is suing the university and the American Society of Nutrition, claiming moves to retract her paper is tantamount to defamation.

While his organisation was not involved in the feeding trials in China, Dr Zeigler defends the ethics of the study, arguing that there are no safety concerns surrounding golden rice, and therefore there is no case to answer.

‘I think the ethical question would be, “did the researchers knowingly withhold information on a part of the study that would potentially adversely affect the health of their children?” The answer to that is clearly no.’

Dr Hansen, however, says the issues surrounding golden rice go to the heart of the debate over GM technology. He questions whether proper safety assessments have been made on the impact of feeding beta-carotene enriched foods to adults and children. Although scientists involved in the research argue that any extra vitamin A the body does not need is expelled, Hansen says he would like to see further tests done to prove there can be no toxic side effects.

‘That was the one thing that was scandalous about golden rice and even these bananas,’ he says.

‘They are being fed to people when there has never been a published study showing that these things are safe or meet the criteria of reasonable certainty of no harm, and yet they are being used in these feeding studies . If you are doing informed consent with those populations how do you do that when there is no published information about the potential safety?’

Dr Patrick Moore, for his part, lists a string of health and scientific organisations which he says support the safety of GMO foods. However, on the specific issue of golden rice and its potential to combat vitamin A deficiencies, the World Health Organisation will not be drawn, simply stating it ‘has no position on golden rice’.

Dr Hansen argues the same results in combating vitamin A and other deficiencies could be achieved by biofortifying food through non-GM methods, and he points to US based organisation Harvest Plus, which has been doing just that.

Dr Howarth Bouis, the director of Harvest Plus, lists seven crops his organisation has been working on, including a sweet potato in Uganda that has had promising results when it comes to boosting vitamin A levels. However even Dr Bouis, who also sits on the humanitarian board of the golden rice project, says he is not against GM technology. The choice to avoid it was simply a pragmatic one.

‘We don’t consider GMOs dangerous, but we know there is a lot of political opposition to the use of GMOs so we didn’t want to use [them] and then find out we had to put our varieties on the shelf,’ he says.

‘We knew we could do a lot of good with conventional plant breeding so we decided to invest in that.’

Take your place at the table and enjoy a First Bite of the cultural, social, scientific, historical and sensual world of food.